The Theory of Absolutes
The physical universe only has the appearance of solidity, substance, and permanence.
At its foundation, the universe is of the same nature as God, spirit, and mind
The Theory of Absolutes is a broad spectrum examination
of the phenomenon seen in the physical universe
and an argument that the creation arose from the mind of God
The Requirement for Faith - Whether Naturalist or Christian
The fact of the existence of the physical universe is the ultimate mystery. We take it for granted, and most of us don’t think about it very much. Existence, consciousness, life, and earth is like air for man, and water for fish – it’s simply there, it’s invisible and its origin is seldom considered.
When we do occasionally ask the hard questions, like, “Where and what did the universe come from?” We can’t answer the question. So, we often listen to the experts, (such as the physicists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, and other scientists) who have become philosophers. And, since they are experts, many of us accept their theories about the origin of the universe and life. After all, they have thought and researched about these problems for years, they studied at specialized schools and mastered the body of previously developed knowledge, they are super smart, they make their theories based on equations, and other experts recognized them, accepted their work, and gave them Nobel prizes for their discoveries and theories.
Still, we should realize that the physics community doesn’t know where the physical universe came from. People have theories, but there is no consensus among the competing schools of thought. One theory that some physicists hold, and is often presented when they are asked to rationalize the existence of the universe, is the quantum fluctuation of space theory.
In other words, the universe may have come into existence spontaneously due to an accidental/random/chance quantum fluctuation in space. This theory probably has its roots in the explanation of the Casimir effect, which is explained by positing the existence of virtual electrons and virtual positrons which spring out of the empty space for a very short time, and thus do not violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (Thus, in this explanation, “empty space” is actually filled with a space from which particles spontaneously spring and then recombine.) The particles jumping in and out of existence is called a “quantum foam.” This effect is probably the inspiration for the theory that the universe sprang from a quantum fluctuation in the quantum foam – obviously a much larger fluctuation than was the case within experiments that demonstrate the Casimir effect.
In other words, this creation scenario depends upon empty space (from which virtual positrons and electrons spring and recombine) being able to spontaneously generate all the particles in the universe. The first and most obvious problem with this theory, as acknowledged by the physics community, is that there are the same number of particles as antiparticles in the quantum foam. But, in this quantum-fluctuation creation scenario, there is a vast asymmetry of particles and antiparticles. Essentially every particle in the universe is matter, and there is very little antimatter. So, the physics community is currently looking for some way to rationalize this disparity so as to maintain the hope that the quantum-fluctuation theory can be rationalized by experiment. In particular, they are looking for some asymmetry in subatomic processes. There is one small effect that has been found associated with Kaon decay. So, that is the hook the physics community is hanging their hats on to explain why it is possibly possible that all the particles constituting the entire universe of particles sprang in a moment by a massive quantum fluctuation and therefore there ended up being more particles of real matter than anti-matter
This theory about a spontaneous quantum fluctuation (that didn’t recombine) producing all the particles in the entire physical universe creation theory depends upon the theories and evidence of quantum mechanics. While such a cosmic split in the void of space cannot be ruled out, it still begs the question of what/who created the pre-creation void that was capable of splitting and spitting out an entire universe of matter and antimatter in a trillionth of a trillionth, of a trillionth… of a second, and staying separated for the next billions of years?
In other words, what natural process generated the space that generated the mass? And what natural process created the space that generated the space that generated the mass, etcetera… In other words, what is the original cause of the creation? Where did the original space come from that generated the space which ultimately generated the quantum fluctuation from which the universe sprang? Obviously, the best and brightest physicists of our time have no answers to this question.
Such solutions to problems are called an infinite regress, and in general, such solutions are not accepted as valid/useful/definitive explanations. In fact, the very physicists who are offering this explanation to the question about the origin of the universe, also criticize theists who say that “God created the creation” because that raises the question of where God came from.
But obviously, the physicists who believe in quantum fluctuations being the origin of the universe have presented a solution that offers a solution no deeper than the theist’s faith that the creation was created by God. Neither solution resolves the fundamental mystery by proposing an original cause. Neither gives a definitive final/ultimate explanation about the origin of the cause that ultimately generated the mass, energy, space, and time we see in the physical universe.
In other words, both conventional physicists and theists rely on faith that their theory is correct because neither position yields an explanation that is fully satisfying. Neither the nature-only nor the God-created-it theory gives a logically satisfying answer to the question about the final/ultimate/original origin of the creation/universe.
The work and goal of the physicist are to identify ever more elemental physical processes that may explain an ever smaller/more elementary phenomenon. But, physics has imposed self-constrained boundaries on the explanations considered acceptable answers and causes for phenomena. In particular, in the answer given to a physics question, no cause other than physical processes can ever be considered as the explanatory cause of a phenomenon. This is good, and reasonable to always keep looking for a more and more primal cause of effects seen in the physical universe. It is tempting to offer the explanation of supernatural hand to any physical process whose elemental forces are unknown. But, the declaration of “God being the cause” of any given unknown phenomenon has been proven incorrect so many times throughout history that the mere proposition of God being involved at any level of the physical universe is greeted with hearty reflexive derision. Probably, because of the history of so many spectacularly wrong attributions of God’s mediation of various phenomena, at this point, no professional physicist can seriously propose that God or any other non-physical force is the explanatory agent that mediates any physical law.
As a result, either by purposeful choice and intention or in reaction to past failures of the “God caused it” hypothesis, God cannot be considered the cause of any phenomenon inside the field of physics. Obviously, this same restriction is applied to considering/exploring/examining the possibility that God was the force that generated the creation. So, we see a field of science which has imposed upon itself a restriction of only considering natural/non-God/non-supernatural forces and processes as the possible explanation for physical phenomena.
Thus, the physics community has committed itself looking for, and explaining all physical phenomena in terms of more elemental physical phenomena. And, while any individual physicist may be a believer in God, the institutional bias/policy and de facto philosophy of the profession is “faith in physical processes” as the cause and origin of the universe. Many physicists have probably adopted that same philosophy as their personal philosophical belief system.
But, the physics profession is not in an unbiased or open position to look for the Truth. The profession has started with the restriction of only looking at/considering physical causes. Thus, their professional charter/mandate has restricted them from a full spectrum examination of all possibilities. Such a profession is not is a position to offer a definitive opinion about the existence/non-existence of God, since there has been a concerted/forceful exclusion of all consideration of God as the explanation of any phenomenon.
Rather, the physics community can only say that they have looked for smaller and smaller, and more elemental physical causes (masses and forces) and inside of that domain of research and theoretical consideration, they have not found a phenomenon where they have found it necessary/appropriate to invoke the power/action of God explain a phenomenon.
Of course, if a physicist purposefully excludes God as the causative force acting in a phenomenon, then the chance is vanishingly small of him/her coming to the conclusion that God exists, was involved in a phenomenon, or that He created energy, space, mass, and time. The physics community is looking in a different arena, and what they do is amazing, skilled, intelligent, logical, and imaginative. But, their work only proves that some phenomena are explainable in terms of the laws of Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, field theory, particle physics, and relativity. And, in time, the physics community may conduct enough experiments, and connect the data-points with sophisticated theories, and eventually show that all physical phenomena are derivative effects resulting from the known laws, particle, and field interactions.
But still, such discovery and elaboration of the details of the physical world do not give an explanation to the fact of the existence of matter, energy, space, and time. In fact, I believe, at that point, the connection between the supernatural, the mind of God, and its relationship to the manifestation of the physical world will be blindingly obvious. At that juncture, the hypothesis of God as the creator/originator of the substance will be intuitive and a natural extension of the theoretical and empirical frameworks. It is about this connection, that interface between the physical and non-physical world, about which I write my theory about the structures and forces that connect the current Subatomic Zoo and the Conscious Particles, the entities which I believe connect physics to the mind of God. This body of work I call the Theory of Absolutes.
In the case of the typical physicist, it is likely that many hold to the religion of secular humanism and Scientism. As such, many probably seek to justify all knowledge past the current level of explanation by physical causes and reject the theory/belief in God as unsophisticated, primitive, and superstitious. Rather, the typical physicist may instead have faith in Science, that “someday, science will fill in the gap and identify the details of all currently unseen/unidentified physical phenomena.” In other words, all phenomenon will have a causal explanation in terms of a sequence of xyz particles interacting with abc forces.
It may be true that all forces may be someday be unified as originating from a single primal force. And, it may also be true that all particles may someday be known to have decayed from a single primal/elemental mass. But, even in that scenario, the man who believes that the physical universe is all there is, will not be able to take his knowledge any farther and declare that natural forces and entities (i.e., not God) are the ultimate origin/source of all forces and mass. For the physicist, there will ultimately be a gap that will remain in the causal sequence between the physical universe and the Nothing from which it sprang. At the end, it will be impossible to determine the ultimate/first/primal cause. The origin of the nothing from which all things sprang will still be a mystery, and the man of science will still not be able to definitively declare, “There is no God.”
Rather, the physicist who has faith in natural processes, and the man who has faith in God, will both still be men of faith. The physicist will continue to believe in that unknown, unidentified primal natural cause, which will explain how the universe/mass/force originated. The man who believes in God will still believe that God was the source from which existence and life flowed. In the end, both will remain, both clinging to his own religion.
Thus, the question of the origin of the physical universe, whether by God or natural processes cannot be resolved by developing a body of knowledge that maps the total/full/complete/exhaustive causal connection between the physical universe and the primal mass and force according to the precepts of a unified mass and field theory. Rather, even at that point, each man must decide in his own heart whether he hears a still small voice speaking that God is real/existent and is drawing him to Him.
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND 12/14/2008 4/5/2019 rev Summary: The formation of pockets of dynamic stability in turbulent flow provides an analogy and insights into to the macro & micro economic processes involved in the formation of stable pockets of inequitable...
Dr. T., In response to your article, "Physics and Faith", you are putting words in the mouths of physicists to suit your premise. Here is what Stephen Hawking thinks about the beginning of the universe: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html...
The fact of the existence of the physical universe is the ultimate mystery. We take it for granted, we don't think about it, it's like air, it's simply there, and we live inside of it every day. When we do ask the hard questions, like, "What did the universe...
This question and answer may be found on Physics Stack Exchange. Question: When two masses collide inelastically, the kinetic energy is not conserved. This is obvious because kinetic energy is the energy associated with a mass in motion. In an inelastic collision,...
Opt-In to the Newsletter
In each newsletter, continue the exploration of God’s hand working in creating our universe.